Secondary school teaching without qualifications in Education

katydid

mumzboyz wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from but I have been speaking with a number of schools today who are very interested in this and have been looking to introduce something like this for a while. Many schools teach Scratch, which is great but it's not programming by any means. There is so much more which children can be introduced to.

True. But on the long term, if you want to teach, you need to learn to teach...

mumzboyz

Maybe I should be looking into teaching the teachers programming!

mumzboyz

Yes there is Coder Dojo, which I have previously taught in my local IoT and have lead a class. This is run by industry and lecturing staff but it's the students who teach the classes!

bpmurray

mumzboyz wrote: »

Many schools teach Scratch, which is great but it's not programming by any means. There is so much more which children can be introduced to.

I would very strongly argue that Scratch is programming: it has all the attributes of a programming language, and all the constructs found in pretty much all programming languages (conditionals, loops, variables, etc.). Of course there's much more, but don't underestimate Scratch.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

What about trainers who have years of industry experience and qualifications, qualifications as trainers in teaching adults etc?

I work as one and have students (adults) coming through modular credit based systems to gain qualifications, and wonder at the skills difference that you perceive might be there? The courses I teach have strict syllabi, trainers are assessed yearly, and are immediately suspended if found wanting

Any thoughts on this?

mumzboyz

Yes it does have all that, I totally agree and it's fine to use in first year and maybe second year but there is so much more to programming.

mumzboyz

I have industry experience behind me and have taught both kids and adults some years ago on a part time basis

bpmurray

mumzboyz wrote: »

Yes there is Coder Dojo, which I have previously taught in my local IoT and have lead a class. This is run by industry and lecturing staff but it's the students who teach the classes!

That doesn't sound like CoderDojo to me: typically there are no classes, and it's run by enthusiasts. Industry sometimes sponsors by providing facilities and/or pizza and, even in one IT I mentor in occasionally, there are only a few lecturers who participate as mentors (NOT teachers). The kids are encouraged to mentor those less experienced than they are.

To fully understand how it works (should work?), check out Sugata Mitra's TED Talk of the Year.

mumzboyz

That was my experience of Coder Dojo a few years back.

seavill

These types of short courses are an option to tys in a lot of schools.

However I'm not sure what people's view on the new jc is. Yes there will be several new short courses run for new jc in schools however it will be the current teachers running them regardless of qualifications. I mean look at the amount of people teaching subjects outside their qualifications currently to fill gaps. Qualifications matter little when it suits.
Schools won't be paying people to do it. They don't have the money. Plus if we bring in joe blogs to run a course for 6 weeks the class teacher does what then sit in the staff room. The dept will love that. Teachers timetables have to be filled first that is the reality.

katydid

seavill wrote: »

These types of short courses are an option to tys in a lot of schools.

However I'm not sure what people's view on the new jc is. Yes there will be several new short courses run for new jc in schools however it will be the current teachers running them regardless of qualifications. I mean look at the amount of people teaching subjects outside their qualifications currently to fill gaps. Qualifications matter little when it suits.
Schools won't be paying people to do it. They don't have the money. Plus if we bring in joe blogs to run a course for 6 weeks the class teacher does what then sit in the staff room. The dept will love that. Teachers timetables have to be filled first that is the reality.

Outsiders will have to be brought in for some things. How could anyone who has no Japanese teach Japanese, for heaven's sake? Depends what short courses they choose, I suppose.

spurious

katydid wrote: »

Outsiders will have to be brought in for some things. How could anyone who has no Japanese teach Japanese, for heaven's sake? Depends what short courses they choose, I suppose.

As in most schools, they will offer what they have the staff to offer.

gubbie

mumzboyz wrote: »

I'm not having a dig at you, teachers or anybody else but I'm very passionate about the fact that kids and teenagers need to have exposure to proper coding / programming... If nothing else, it improves a childs' logic!

Should you get this up and running, remember that you can not necessarily teach as you did in Coderdojo. Try structuring your class like a Maths lesson - get them up and doing things to understand the logic behind it. That is fundamentally the most important thing to it

You stated later on that Scratch wasn't a real computer language and that you want the kids to have experience to real languages. I would strongly urge you not to discount it. Hand on heart, (after teaching programming, with a programming Masters and a teaching degree), I do not think that kids will learn logic from jumping straight into Java/C/whichever. There's a reason why Coderdojo starts with Scratch! They can play with it, test parameters.

I've read good arguments that teaching kids the language of programming is pointless, that really they should focus on how to use programming as another form of learning how to problem solve

mumzboyz

Thanks for that Gubbie.

Classes will be structured and the students will be working from the start. It won't be a lecture, it's mainly going to be hands on work for the students - it's the only way to learn programming.

Just to clarify, I'm not knocking Scratch but from speaking with 2 Heads of Computing in 2 different colleges, the feedback was that the students were under the illusion that this is how programming is done and they both felt that the students would benefit from learning how to code using proper syntax.

gubbie

mumzboyz wrote: »

Classes will be structured and the students will be working from the start. It won't be a lecture, it's mainly going to be hands on work for the students - it's the only way to learn programming.

Just to clarify, I'm not knocking Scratch but from speaking with 2 Heads of Computing in 2 different colleges, the feedback was that the students were under the illusion that this is how programming is done and they both felt that the students would benefit from learning how to code using proper syntax.

Eh, I ever so slightly disagree with your format - I think there should be 4 parts to your general lesson - a brief activity summarising things they had done in previous lessons that they would need for this one, initialising variables, printing to the screen... a very brief intro (like a few minutes) followed by some sort of activity not at the computer to learn the logic behind why you would do something, followed by computer work.

For example, if you wanted to teach about loops I'd get them to play a short game, something like "While I hold up the number 4 you must put your name up in the air, otherwise you hide it". Then discuss the idea of repeating things until they are no longer true. Then group them and have them come up with their own ideas on a large piece of paper/whiteboard/whatever you have. You can go around then, glance at the pages and check that the right idea is going through their heads. If a group isn't getting it, have another group explain it to them in their own words, with an example. Once you're happy, move onto how you would write it in code. Using your game, up on the board, show them, stopping every once in a while to question students, "So we write, while bracket number equals, what was my number John? 4 yes, so while number equals four, close the bracket, what did we do Mary? Yes, we showed our names, so here's how the computer would show your name..." Then get them to write how they think they would write what they have written, in a program and then finally move onto the computer. Don't forget to differentiate so that the kids who get this easily will push through, and can jump ahead.

[Edit] This is how I would teach JC students, I'd alter it for teaching older

I don't think Heads in Colleges are an ideal source. They get this position because they are really clever in their field, but they're not necessarily good teachers. Their focus is not to be great teachers, but to be great at getting funding and research! So of course it's in their interest to have all the students know programming when they're coming in, just like in an ideal world I'd LOVE kids to come into secondary school knowing Algebra and how I'm sure primary school teachers would love to get kids all knowing how to multiply, having learnt it from their parents!

poster2525

I think this is like music lessons - I can see that some students (and their parents) would have the desire to develop these skills, but I really see it as an evening or weekend add-on programme. It could possibly work for a 3-6 week TY group...but I don't know?? You'd have a very diverse crowd in the room, who mightn't be very motivated.

I assume gubbie is a permanent teacher who has brought the students up through the ranks, so it probably works well in this situation, and can be integrated into his/her timetable.

byhookorbycrook

At primary level , it is VERY much discouraged that outside teachers who must be paid are used during the school day. I'd imagine the same would occur in secondary, especially when that person is not a qualified teacher.

katydid

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

At primary level , it is VERY much discouraged that outside teachers who must be paid are used during the school day. I'd imagine the same would occur in secondary, especially when that person is not a qualified teacher.

The Dept's push to these "short courses" in JC and beyond is going to undermine the education system and teaching profession in the long run.

gaeilgebeo

katydid wrote: »

The Dept's push to these "short courses" in JC and beyond is going to undermine the education system and teaching profession in the long run.

As stated before, the short courses will not require that teachers be brought in to teach specialised courses.
Schools will work within their current staff constraints.
Short courses do not need to be anything outside of subjects already being taught in the school.
While I don't agree with the idea or concept of short-courses, there has been a lot of scare-mongering in relation to their implications.

katydid

gaeilgebeo wrote: »

As stated before, the short courses will not require that teachers be brought in to teach specialised courses.
School will work within their current staff constraints.
Short courses do not need to be anything outside of subjects already being taught in the school.
While I don't agree with the idea or concept of short-courses, there has been a lot of scare-mongering in relation to their implications.

That is probably what will happen, but in more well off areas, parents might well contribute to bringing in outsiders to do the more unusual options. Look at the situation here, where the parents are willing to pay for the course the OP is offering

Nadser

poster2525 wrote: »

I don't see how this would be viable within school hours if you're not using qualified teachers, particularly at post primary level - there are many teachers who have ICT qualifications and/or backgrounds who would happily teach short programmes. Also, the education centres are providing courses to teachers at the moment. You may be underestimating the skills of teachers in situ, or newly qualified teachers who are available!

Consider the number of students who have passed through online teacher training in the last few years - I know we're talking more basic skills, but from what I've seen there's great enthusiasm to incorporate ICT into teaching and learning - many just haven't been given the opportunity yet!!

In fairness I think there is a huge difference between teachers who have ICT qualifications and someone who is an expert in that field. The OP is not talking about integrating ICT into the classroom, they are talking about teaching programming. I also think maybe the reason some heads of computing are concerned about Scratch is due to these 'qualified teachers' doing a short course in it and teaching their pupils without any real or deep understanding of computer science or programming.

To put where I'm coming from into perspective, I'm a further ed computer studies teacher with my primary degree in computer science. I despair when I talk to qualified teachers (and not just in my field) who have no real understanind of their subject, but hey, the teaching council deems them qualified so that's alright then. Coming from the VEC tradition I'm much !ore in favour of people being subject matter experts and think whether or not they've done a teaching practice course largely irrelevant.

poster2525

Nadser wrote: »

To put where I'm coming from into perspective, I'm a further ed computer studies teacher with my primary degree in computer science. I despair when I talk to qualified teachers (and not just in my field) who have no real understanind of their subject, but hey, the teaching council deems them qualified so that's alright then. Coming from the VEC tradition I'm much !ore in favour of people being subject matter experts and think whether or not they've done a teaching practice course largely irrelevant.

That doesn't make sense - so if I have a computer science degree and then do 2 years post primary training, I have no real understanding of the subject?

katydid

Nadser wrote: »

Coming from the VEC tradition I'm much !ore in favour of people being subject matter experts and think whether or not they've done a teaching practice course largely irrelevant.

Believe it or not, in the "VEC tradition", teaching qualifications are also considered important. If FE, where the sector developed off the cuff, unqualified people were taken on because there were no qualified teachers in certain areas, but they are now expected to undertake teacher training in order to be registered with the Teaching Council.

I'm astonished that a teacher would dismiss the importance of being trained in teaching methods, and all that comes from that for the benefit of the student. Of course it's important to understand your subject, but that's only part of what teaching is about.

Nadser

poster2525 wrote: »

That doesn't make sense - so if I have a computer science degree and then do 2 years post primary training, I have no real understanding of the subject?

Obviously my comment does not apply to you but very few primary teachers have a degree in computer science

Edit: sorry, missed the post primary part in the above quote. There are still relatively few qualified post primary teachers with computer science degrees I would imagine

katydid

Nadser wrote: »

Obviously my comment does not apply to you but very few primary teachers have a degree in computer science

You were talking about qualified computer teachers, not primary teachers.

byhookorbycrook

We primary teachers might not have degrees but we do know how to teach children what they need to know computer wise at present.

katydid

byhookorbycrook wrote: »

We primary teachers might not have degrees but we do know how to teach children what they need to know computer wise at present.

The thing is, they probably know more than you do! :cool:

poster2525

I don't think that primary teachers need a computer science degree to teach computers to children - similarly, they don't need a Maths degree or a History degree or a Science degree.

In post primary, if a school wants to introduce a subject like programming, I think they should employ a qualified post primary IT teacher, or at the least a qualified post primary teacher who has studied IT as part of their degree or Masters.

Failing that, I think they could recommend an outside body to parents, and if it suited everyone, make the school available in the evening for private classes.

I have the same opinion about employing a chef to teach Home Economics or a counsellor to teach SPHE or an actuary to teach Maths.

evolving_doors

katydid wrote: »

Believe it or not, in the "VEC tradition", teaching qualifications are also considered important. If FE, where the sector developed off the cuff, unqualified people were taken on because there were no qualified teachers in certain areas, but they are now expected to undertake teacher training in order to be registered with the Teaching Council.

I'm astonished that a teacher would dismiss the importance of being trained in teaching methods, and all that comes from that for the benefit of the student. Of course it's important to understand your subject, but that's only part of what teaching is about.

Well i suppose getting back to the OP. they are not offering a comprehensive curriculum (in the same vain as say a history or french curriculum for LC/JC).
From the OP's point of view it's a package. You want to learn to program then here's the package, the school pays and away you go. Same as rugby after school: you want rugby.. here's a coach.. away you go. If they want to tie that in to TY then it's like any outside workshop offered to TY's.

katydid

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Well i suppose getting back to the OP. they are not offering a comprehensive curriculum (in the same vain as say a history or french curriculum for LC/JC).
From the OP's point of view it's a package. You want to learn to program then here's the package, the school pays and away you go. Same as rugby after school: you want rugby.. here's a coach.. away you go. If they want to tie that in to TY then it's like any outside workshop offered to TY's.

I don't teach in this area, but I think what some of the other people here are trying to say is that this kind of thing is an area that should be taught in schools, but that ideally the students should be taught rather than trained in it. Anyone can coach or train people to perform tasks, but our school system is about training young people to develop wider skills and thinking processes, so they can use them in life. Teaching students about the logic behind these computer processes is more valuable than simply training them in a particular coding language.